STATE (DELHI ADMN.) Vs. HARI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal the State challenges the acquittal of the respondent Hari Chand for offences under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By the impugned judgment dated the 26th August, 1978, the Special Judge, Delhi held that the prosecution had failed to lead clear and convincing evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the bribe money by Hari Chand, who was at the relevant time a Naib Nazir attached to the Court of a local Subordinate Judge. As the substantive evidence led by the prosecution was not reliable. It was held that the presumption under Section 4 (1) of the Act could not be drawn.

(2.) WITH the assistance of learned counsel, we have gone through the evidence, as also the impugned judgment. We agree with Mr. Soni, earned counsel for the respondent that in the present case the complainant's evidence does not inspire confidence. The prosecution allegation that the respondent had demanded bribe of Rs. 20/- to prepare a warrant of possession in respect of Plot No. 322, Hari Nagar Ashram and accepted the same for that purpose from Pirthi Singh, has not been proved. The complainant's case that before handing over the amount of Rs. 20/- the respondent had shown the said warrant to him, stands completely negatived by the testimony of P. 9 Karam Singh, Civil Nazir who has stated that the warrant of possession had already been entered in the register of warrants against entry No. 2579 dated the 27th September, 1977 This register had been taken into custody by the Investigating Officer intermediately after the apprehension of the accused at about 3.00 PM on 27th September, 1977. The statement of Karam Singh is not very long. As it has a bearing on the decision of this case, we may quote the same.

(3.) ANOTHER peculiar fact of this case which has been highlighted by the trial court is that after the alleged handing over of the illegal gratification, the complainant disappeared from the scene. He was brought by a Constable from his house about three hours after the occurrence. The complainant asked that he came-back on his own but one of the Panch witnesses namely P.W. 7 A.D. Chhabra has admitted in his examination-in-chief that "Prithi Singh complainant had left the place as soon as the accused was caught hold of. He came there at about 6.45 PM. He was brought there by a Constable of the Anti Corruption Branch from his house.